Slashdot Mirror

I may have missed it, but the original article is here

Tell me when realistic human rating standards ever get established for spaceflight in America. At the moment, the only standard that I'm aware of is if the NASA administrator or one of his deputies simply declares that a spacecraft meets "man-rating" because that is what it was designed to do.

NASA Standard NPR 8705.2B “Human-Rating. Requirements for Space Systems.”

The GP comparing weather to climate pretty much causes him to lose all credibility on the subject...

For those interested in the difference, NASA has a good article on it:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html

From a link posted above
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/building_curiosity.html

The Girl and her essay that got it it's name.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/essay-20090527.html

From a link posted above
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/building_curiosity.html

The Girl and her essay that got it it's name.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/essay-20090527.html

> It'll also give us time to weed out alternate explanations for the perceived global warming such as changes in solar activity, orbital configuration, or other non-anthropogenic possibilities.

What's an example of one that's not already been weeded out?

Solar output has been measured by satellite since 1978, http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ACRIMIII/Images/solar_irradiance_right.gif. Orbit cycles have been understood for a long time.

Actually, the specific image they mention is this one from here.

Posted anonymously this time to not karma whore.

Actually, the specific image they mention is this one from here.

Posted anonymously this time to not karma whore.

At the risk of being modded off-topic, here's the higher-resolution image mentioned by rts008 and JavaBasedOS for anyone interested.

It's actually sunset, as NASA mentions here. If you haven't seen it, it's worth a look.

I agree that, for all the advancements in knowledge that NASA and ESA develop, images such as these are what best capture children's imaginations and inspire them. This is what fuels dreams and fosters a desire to contribute to our* space program. Hopefully the image of this meteor inspires someone to pursue studies in a space-related career!

* - our = humanity's collective space program as a whole, because it doesn't matter if a child is from the US, the UK, the EU, China, India - we're all in this together, alone here on this rock.

Related: Pale Blue Dot
Earth and the moon from Mars

At the risk of being modded off-topic, here's the higher-resolution image mentioned by rts008 and JavaBasedOS for anyone interested.

It's actually sunset, as NASA mentions here. If you haven't seen it, it's worth a look.

I agree that, for all the advancements in knowledge that NASA and ESA develop, images such as these are what best capture children's imaginations and inspire them. This is what fuels dreams and fosters a desire to contribute to our* space program. Hopefully the image of this meteor inspires someone to pursue studies in a space-related career!

* - our = humanity's collective space program as a whole, because it doesn't matter if a child is from the US, the UK, the EU, China, India - we're all in this together, alone here on this rock.

Related: Pale Blue Dot
Earth and the moon from Mars

At the risk of being modded off-topic, here's the higher-resolution image mentioned by rts008 and JavaBasedOS for anyone interested.

It's actually sunset, as NASA mentions here. If you haven't seen it, it's worth a look.

I agree that, for all the advancements in knowledge that NASA and ESA develop, images such as these are what best capture children's imaginations and inspire them. This is what fuels dreams and fosters a desire to contribute to our* space program. Hopefully the image of this meteor inspires someone to pursue studies in a space-related career!

* - our = humanity's collective space program as a whole, because it doesn't matter if a child is from the US, the UK, the EU, China, India - we're all in this together, alone here on this rock.

Related: Pale Blue Dot
Earth and the moon from Mars

Even though the waves from the tsunami following the recent 9.0 Japan earthquake were not very large when hitting Antarctica, about 50 square miles of ice broke off.
Some of the many factors are not linear, so a simple loss multiplier or even one based on monotonically increasing loss will have limited accuracy. That's no excuse for denial, as what's happening is quite clear.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/view.php?id=51665&src=eorss-nh

I think they'd prefer to go with airbags, but it's too heavy. My car doesn't weigh half that.. imagine hanging 2 cars from a "sky crane" powered by retros.. as it speeds towards the ground at 1000 mph. if one of the retros fails or the tether snaps, it's game over. compare that with: inflate bags @ a reasonable altitude and hope you don't hit a sharp rock.

Spirit weighs 500 pounds. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit_rover

Curiosity - FIVE TONS. "The five-ton mobile laboratory is slated to blast off onboard a United Launch Alliance Atlas V rocket between Nov 25 and Dec.18, embarking on a nearly 9 month journey."

NASA nerds are so full of WIN! (no retros, but watch the drop test) http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/building_curiosity.html

Curiosity is the size of a truck.

You could use a stirling engine. It can convert up to 28% (as far as I know) of heat into mechanical energy. Abstract: http://www.mendeley.com/research/automotive-stirling-engine-mod-ii-design-report/ Full: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19880002196_1988002196.pdf It was mounted and tested on actual cars. The car: http://grcimagenet.grc.nasa.gov/share/scr_stillimages_detail.cfm?year=1979&cnumber=3995&c_numbertextdisplay=C-1979-3995&dis_opts=shoicons&maxcnumber=707&maxcyear=1980

You could use a stirling engine. It can convert up to 28% (as far as I know) of heat into mechanical energy. Abstract: http://www.mendeley.com/research/automotive-stirling-engine-mod-ii-design-report/ Full: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19880002196_1988002196.pdf It was mounted and tested on actual cars. The car: http://grcimagenet.grc.nasa.gov/share/scr_stillimages_detail.cfm?year=1979&cnumber=3995&c_numbertextdisplay=C-1979-3995&dis_opts=shoicons&maxcnumber=707&maxcyear=1980

NASA does plenty of suborbital work for research purposes. You can read about it here:

http://rscience.gsfc.nasa.gov/

Are their any write-ups on the propulsion and heat resistant materials?

It's a glider.

Materials.

If the flare had been directed towards the earth, what would have happened?

A better question; what if this X-WHATEVER FLARE! (X 28) flare from November 2003 was pointed towards us?

Those would be "building blocks of any organic molecule". These are adenine and guanine, molecules of a dozen or so atoms, as well as some other molecules related to them though not found in DNA.

Actual press release with more science than TFA:

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/dna-meteorites.html

In space, some satellites actually tumbled out of control for several hours. NASA's TDRS-1 communication satellite recorded over 250 anomalies as high-energy particles invaded the satellite's sensitive electronics. Even the Space Shuttle Discovery was having its own mysterious problems. A sensor on one of the tanks supplying hydrogen to a fuel cell was showing unusually high pressure readings on March 13. The problem went away just as mysteriously after the solar storm subsided.

http://www.ips.gov.au/Educational/1/3/12

Service restoration took more than nine hours. This can be explained by the fact that some of the essential equipment, particularly on the James Bay transmission network, was made unavailable by the blackout. Generation from isolated stations normally intended for export was repatriated to meet Quebec's needs and the utility purchased electricity from Ontario, New Brunswick and the Alcan and McLaren Systems.

By noon, the entire generating and transmission system was back in service, although 17 percent of Quebec customers were still without electricity. In fact, several distribution-system failures occurred because of the high demand typical of Monday mornings, combined with the jump in heating load after several hours without power.

So... It caused a cascading effect, just like the most recent New York blackout, scary stuff if it occured across even a marginal size of the USA.

Some Useful Links.... http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/sun_darkness.html http://www.ips.gov.au/Educational/1/3/12

How about a clickable fucking link? http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/videogallery/index.html?collection_id=14483&media_id=104892521&module=homepage

What exactly do you think they did? Re read Kim Stanley Robinson? Yes, their is spectroscopic data that supports the ideas, yes they need to do more it.

Proper science isn't waiting until you know everything. That never happens anyway.

They make announcements like this all the time. I understand, they need funds, but they discover the same thing again and again: they announced a half dozen times they discovered water on Mars, for example. Now they're announcing again the presence of flowing water, the first time they were heavily questioned.
Don't get me wrong, I'd like to know everything about our solar system and universe and I'd like to travel to Mars someday, but this is getting more and more like the extrasolar planets thing: one day someone makes a bombastic announcement about the discover of an earth-like planet, and the day after someone else disproves it all, quietly.

What the website has is a single sequence. I don't see any cyclic activity. It's also oddly widespread, almost stringy, as though the flow is considerable and the scale of the picture is much bigger than it appears (not unlikely, and given they added no scale information it's almost useless as science).

Seems like it's flowing water they've found. Nothing like the Nile river, but still promising...

I guess the depends on what age we are talking about.

I guess if you had your way you would just slap down a book on the maths of orbital mechanics and say 'read up kid, it's cool, homey'

Something has to catch their interest. Going to Jupiter is only cool and awe inspiring when you can only understand how far away it is, and the science that can be done. Until then, using Lego to get interest is fine.

My name, my wife's name, and my kids names are on Mars, and also on an comet. When my kids where old enough, I told them about it which lead to a description of probes, and an interesting conversation about Mars and a Comet. A conversation that went off and on for days.

http://marsparticipate.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/participate/sendyourname/
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/deepimpact/media/deepimpact-050904.html

I guess the depends on what age we are talking about.

I guess if you had your way you would just slap down a book on the maths of orbital mechanics and say 'read up kid, it's cool, homey'

Something has to catch their interest. Going to Jupiter is only cool and awe inspiring when you can only understand how far away it is, and the science that can be done. Until then, using Lego to get interest is fine.

My name, my wife's name, and my kids names are on Mars, and also on an comet. When my kids where old enough, I told them about it which lead to a description of probes, and an interesting conversation about Mars and a Comet. A conversation that went off and on for days.

http://marsparticipate.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/participate/sendyourname/
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/deepimpact/media/deepimpact-050904.html

Yeah, flowing salty water, they think. http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2011/aug/HQ_11-245_Mars_Water.html

They have certainly found methane on Mars, and so far can't conclusively explain where it's coming from, or its periodic nature;

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/mars/news/marsmethane.html

Here's the good bit;

"Methane is quickly destroyed in the Martian atmosphere in a variety of ways, so our discovery of substantial plumes of methane in the northern hemisphere of Mars in 2003 indicates some ongoing process is releasing the gas," said Dr. Michael Mumma of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center [...]

Take a look at Lisa Pratt, among today's panelists - her IU home page is kind of a big clue;

Lisa M. Pratt, Provost's Professor of Geological Sciences, Biogeochemistry

Research Interests:

Geomicrobiology of sulfate-reducing microorganisms
Biotic and abiotic fractionation of sulfur isotopes in modern and ancient oceans and lakes
Influence of wildfire on carbon isotopic excursions during the Cretaceous
Fate of complex organic molecules on the surface of Mars

      Ph.D., 1982, Geology, Princeton University
        M.S., 1978, Geology, University of North Carolina
        M.S., 1974, Botany, University of Illinois
        B.A., 1972, Botany, University of North Carolina

Saturn's moon Titan has a thick atmosphere (acutal ground pic). It also has gravity low enough that if a person could strap on a pair of wings, they could fly and more oil than the entire planet.

And to back up this claim before someone poo poos it I offer this NASA page showing that we receive about 10,000 times the amount of energy from the sun each day than we need. So we could cover 1% of the earth's surface with 1% efficient solar panels and meet our energy needs. Now since we have panels that far exceed the poor 1% performance that number seems reasonable.We quite literally are getting tons (about 216 short tons) of energy from the sun every day.

Well, the article persists in saying 'trichlorethylene', which is substantially slower to evaporate than trichloroethane (aka 1,1,1 trichloroethane). Also less toxic, and less of everything, mostly.

NASA published this report on 'inhibited 1,1,1 trichloroethane', replacing trichlorethylene, but I recall in the 90s that Tri-Ethane was essentially banned from common uses, thanks Montreal.

Apparently, the 'inhibited' part of Tri-Ethane is the addition of dioxane, amyl alcohol, or nitromethane, and butylene oxide. Doesn't that sound yummy.

Working on typewriters, IBM delivered it as 'Tri-Ethane', "1,1,1 trichloroethane", and I could find the part number for you in a week or so... It even cleaned your clothes. Good stuff, that.

Calling it Methyl Chloroform does diminish the appeal, I admit.

We won't even get into MEK. That stuff is the printer's friend, and just plain nasty.

This article from NASA gives a very nice example of the orbital decay from Apollo days.

I was trying to understand the part about the orbits.

According to NASA, they agree about high (100s of miles) circular orbits -- they "decay" quickly. But here's the interesting part:

Now for the good news. Ely and several colleagues have discovered a whole new class of "frozen" or stable high-altitude lunar orbits. Pictured right, they are all inclined at steep angles to the Moon's equatorial plane so they get far above the horizon at the lunar poles, and--surprise--they are all also quite elliptical. [...] How stable are they? Ely and his colleagues calculate that certain elliptical, high-inclination, high-altitude lunar orbits may remain stable for periods of at least a century. Indeed, Ely hypothesizes the orbits could last indefinitely.

So not all is lost, orbit-wise, but those are not orbits where you'd put any sort of a station methinks. And I agree about the pointlessness of getting ISS to the moon.

here you go fuck head:

Increases in Longwave forcing inferred from Outward longwave
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html
Trends in Forcings
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/123222295/PDFSTART
Downward Longwave Radiation
http://landshape.org/enm/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/philipona2004-radiation.pdf
Downward Longwave Radiation
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JD011800.shtml
29000 data sets, press release:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20080514/
29000 data sets
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2008/Rosenzweig_etal_1.html
Global Energy Imbalance:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2005/Hansen_etal_1.html
Isotopes:
http://www.bgc-jena.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf

here you go fuck head:

Increases in Longwave forcing inferred from Outward longwave
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html
Trends in Forcings
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/123222295/PDFSTART
Downward Longwave Radiation
http://landshape.org/enm/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/philipona2004-radiation.pdf
Downward Longwave Radiation
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JD011800.shtml
29000 data sets, press release:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20080514/
29000 data sets
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2008/Rosenzweig_etal_1.html
Global Energy Imbalance:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2005/Hansen_etal_1.html
Isotopes:
http://www.bgc-jena.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf

here you go fuck head:

Increases in Longwave forcing inferred from Outward longwave
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html
Trends in Forcings
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/123222295/PDFSTART
Downward Longwave Radiation
http://landshape.org/enm/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/philipona2004-radiation.pdf
Downward Longwave Radiation
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JD011800.shtml
29000 data sets, press release:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20080514/
29000 data sets
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2008/Rosenzweig_etal_1.html
Global Energy Imbalance:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2005/Hansen_etal_1.html
Isotopes:
http://www.bgc-jena.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf

Let me set your worry aside: None.

Science does not work that way in general, and specifically in this case if you could show the enormous amount of data we have is wrong, you would get a ton of money, and probably a Nobel Prize.

NASA Data:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20080514/ [nasa.gov]
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2008/Rosenzweig_etal_1.html [nasa.gov]
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2005/Hansen_etal_1.html [nasa.gov]

Let me set your worry aside: None.

Science does not work that way in general, and specifically in this case if you could show the enormous amount of data we have is wrong, you would get a ton of money, and probably a Nobel Prize.

NASA Data:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20080514/ [nasa.gov]
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2008/Rosenzweig_etal_1.html [nasa.gov]
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2005/Hansen_etal_1.html [nasa.gov]

Let me set your worry aside: None.

Science does not work that way in general, and specifically in this case if you could show the enormous amount of data we have is wrong, you would get a ton of money, and probably a Nobel Prize.

NASA Data:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20080514/ [nasa.gov]
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2008/Rosenzweig_etal_1.html [nasa.gov]
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2005/Hansen_etal_1.html [nasa.gov]

Here they are, but I doubt you will try to understand them:

First you need to understand this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longwave_radiation

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/123222295/PDFSTART
http://landshape.org/enm/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/philipona2004-radiation.pdf
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JD011800.shtml
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20080514/
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2008/Rosenzweig_etal_1.html
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2005/Hansen_etal_1.html
http://www.bgc-jena.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf

"The claim is that we need to live like hippies and give all our money to Al Gore and friends or THE ENTIRE EARTH WILL BE RUINED FOREVER."
no one claims that. Only people claiming that people claim that.

" But global warming isn't a scientific issue - it's a political issue, "
No, it's a scientific issue, what to do about it is a political issue.

" so you've picked your side (democrat) "
hahaha, now your boiling it down to the side of the Aisle?
democrats like:
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Jon Huntsman
  Olympia Snowe
Susan Collins
  Chris Smith
  Tim Pawlenty
Bob Inglis

oh, wait those are all republicans, my mistake.

In order to support their religious base, The POLITICAL stance of the republicans has been 'no global warming' however if yo look at many of them and there votes, you can see a different picture.
But hey, I actually pay attention to these details, and like researching what different representatives vote for,.
What I don't understand is people like you, who are provably wrong, that keep on spouting your lies. Why?

Here they are, but I doubt you will try to understand them:

First you need to understand this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longwave_radiation

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/123222295/PDFSTART
http://landshape.org/enm/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/philipona2004-radiation.pdf
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JD011800.shtml
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20080514/
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2008/Rosenzweig_etal_1.html
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2005/Hansen_etal_1.html
http://www.bgc-jena.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf

"The claim is that we need to live like hippies and give all our money to Al Gore and friends or THE ENTIRE EARTH WILL BE RUINED FOREVER."
no one claims that. Only people claiming that people claim that.

" But global warming isn't a scientific issue - it's a political issue, "
No, it's a scientific issue, what to do about it is a political issue.

" so you've picked your side (democrat) "
hahaha, now your boiling it down to the side of the Aisle?
democrats like:
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Jon Huntsman
  Olympia Snowe
Susan Collins
  Chris Smith
  Tim Pawlenty
Bob Inglis

oh, wait those are all republicans, my mistake.

In order to support their religious base, The POLITICAL stance of the republicans has been 'no global warming' however if yo look at many of them and there votes, you can see a different picture.
But hey, I actually pay attention to these details, and like researching what different representatives vote for,.
What I don't understand is people like you, who are provably wrong, that keep on spouting your lies. Why?

Here they are, but I doubt you will try to understand them:

First you need to understand this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longwave_radiation

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/123222295/PDFSTART
http://landshape.org/enm/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/philipona2004-radiation.pdf
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JD011800.shtml
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20080514/
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2008/Rosenzweig_etal_1.html
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2005/Hansen_etal_1.html
http://www.bgc-jena.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf

"The claim is that we need to live like hippies and give all our money to Al Gore and friends or THE ENTIRE EARTH WILL BE RUINED FOREVER."
no one claims that. Only people claiming that people claim that.

" But global warming isn't a scientific issue - it's a political issue, "
No, it's a scientific issue, what to do about it is a political issue.

" so you've picked your side (democrat) "
hahaha, now your boiling it down to the side of the Aisle?
democrats like:
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Jon Huntsman
  Olympia Snowe
Susan Collins
  Chris Smith
  Tim Pawlenty
Bob Inglis

oh, wait those are all republicans, my mistake.

In order to support their religious base, The POLITICAL stance of the republicans has been 'no global warming' however if yo look at many of them and there votes, you can see a different picture.
But hey, I actually pay attention to these details, and like researching what different representatives vote for,.
What I don't understand is people like you, who are provably wrong, that keep on spouting your lies. Why?

Let's conveniently ignore the following:

The evidence for rapid climate change is compelling (http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/)
Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the "greenhouse effect" (http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/)

Until it says "most scientists agree that we needn't worry about AGW" I'll keep worrying about AGW.

Let's conveniently ignore the following:

The evidence for rapid climate change is compelling (http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/)
Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the "greenhouse effect" (http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/)

Until it says "most scientists agree that we needn't worry about AGW" I'll keep worrying about AGW.

The 'original' graph has one less data point at the end. The updated graph includes that data point, which was fairly high, and it helped to push up the long term average just a little bit.

Here's the source from NASA, which looks very similar:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.gif

Science news delivered periodically to your inbox. Some of them are customizable, so you can receive updates only on topics of interest to you.

Highly recommended:
American Scientist
Physorg

Also interesting:
Spaceweather
Nasa Science News
Nasa Earth Observatory
Discover Magazine

I imagine there are RSS feeds for most of these as well if you prefer that format.

Science news delivered periodically to your inbox. Some of them are customizable, so you can receive updates only on topics of interest to you.

Highly recommended:
American Scientist
Physorg

Also interesting:
Spaceweather
Nasa Science News
Nasa Earth Observatory
Discover Magazine

I imagine there are RSS feeds for most of these as well if you prefer that format.

Like the article says. Most of this data was already publicly available online:

• HadCRUT Data
• NASA Data
• UAH Data
• RSS Data
• NOAA Data

I took this data and plugged it into Cornell’s free data analysis software Eureka and it found a clear warming trend in the data. I'm not statistician, so I was just playing around, but I have yet to see anyone use this data to argue for anything but a warming trend (Note: I have seen skeptics use parts of this data to show short-term cooling trends). My favorite email attacking the results the software gave me was that I had "manipulated" the data by copying-and-pasting it into Excel.

I'm glad more data is being made publicly available, but, like someone else said, that just means it's time for the skeptics to move the goalposts again. Either put up a competing hypothesis that explains the data or shut up.

1. 1) This spacecraft is much bigger, and requires more power to get around (solar cell power increases with area, but weight goes up with volume!) They want Curiosity to travel many kilometers during its mission, and mobility is (power) expensive.
2. 2)The science payload is tremendous and has a huge number of capabilities, but also requires a lot of power. The video mentioned a laser that can vaporize rock, for instance.
3. 3) The RTG on this thing should provide reliable and lasting power for at least the length of the rated 2-year mission - and beyond. Recall that the Spirit and Opportunity only originally had a 90-day mission life, in part because they estimated the solar array power would be greatly diminished after that. The RTG on Curiosity should be able to provide 80% of its initial power even after a decade on the surface.
4. 4) In addition to the electrical power, the RTG will provide ample "waste heat" that will be used to keep the interior of the spacecraft warm, so that operations can continue through the Martian winter when sunlight is scarce and temperatures are cold.

In short, they did it because an RTG is a much more abundant and long-lived power source for this size craft. It is similar to the arguments made in favor of nuclear power over photovoltaics on Slashdot. Some more information can be found here and here.